Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

tothehops t1_j1o4oqh wrote

Interesting and surprising to see Maine so high

5

chez-linda t1_j1o6xl9 wrote

Sometimes Mississippi has it nice being at the bottom of the list

232

Lar1ssaa t1_j1oac11 wrote

Well that’s sad! Arkansas is such a beautiful place. Guess it’s good that people didn’t discover that yet

3

skunkachunks t1_j1ofqjd wrote

The cumulative rate of inflation since 1975 is about 450%. So most states’ housing costs have increased more than inflation (assuming square footage has remained constant….which it probably has not)

74

inconvenientnews t1_j1oia02 wrote

Replying to iluvios (#1,065,524)

Their incompetency in policies even affects life expectancy:

>with an average life expectancy of about 74.6 years, which would put it 93rd in the world, right between Lithuania and Mauritius, and behind Honduras, Morocco, Tunisia and Vietnam. Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina rank only slightly better.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/04/liberal-policies-like-californias-keep-blue-state-residents-living-longer-study-finds/

44

Acrobatic-Bed-7382 t1_j1olp62 wrote

Well, I'm happy Arkansas has stayed relatively low, otherwise there's no way I'd have been able to buy a home this year! It was hard enough to afford it (in NWA) as is, so I'm lucky it wasn't worse!

2

Ambitious-Event-5911 t1_j1oscbl wrote

This is why I'm renting. I hate real estate speculators. I hate that our country allows housing to be used as an investment. I hate Jamie Diamond the predatory lender that still got all his bonuses.

28

lens_cleaner t1_j1osti4 wrote

Now I see why my rent has gone up by 5x in the last 25 years

1

PapaChoff t1_j1owbwq wrote

Washington surprised me until I looked at how many cooperate HQs are based there.

6

SuperBethesda t1_j1ox98w wrote

Oregon’s growth is driven by Californians moving there.

2

Mainttech t1_j1oxzsj wrote

Just moved from one at the top, to one near the bottom. Bought a gorgeous house that met all of our needs. And with comparable wages. You can escape the top few states.

1

uhh_khakis t1_j1p2qx5 wrote

Replying to imnotsoho (#1,068,154)

whataboutism. cars, and certainly not paintings, are not even comparable to the level of requirement for basic human needs and security as housing. show some fucking compassion for people who don't have it as good as you, jfc

26

daedalus_was_right t1_j1p4h6l wrote

Replying to imnotsoho (#1,068,154)

I don't need a painting to live. I don't need stocks to survive.

I need a home as a basic necessity for survival.

Honest question; do you prefer a full leather upper, or something synthetic, when you do your bootlicking?

17

Roy4Pris t1_j1p4w7g wrote

There must be some kind of rule, where any graph, featuring US states, no matter what the criteria, will feature California at one end, and Arkansas at the other

3

bolteon593 t1_j1p66xs wrote

That’s gotta suck for everyone in not CA dealing with much shittier weather on the left side.

0

cartersa87 t1_j1p6i3q wrote

Would be interesting to see this data compared to voting tendencies. Initially, looks like a lot of blue states are experiencing the largest price increases while red states remain relatively flat.

1

fred_fotch OP t1_j1p76lj wrote

Replying to cartersa87 (#1,068,630)

I think it's mostly geography rather than political affiliation. Red states like Utah, Arizona, Montana and Florida are above average. The South and Midwest are below average. Overall, Blue States are higher but I think it's driven by geography.

3

beerbaconblowjob t1_j1p8oi9 wrote

Replying to daedalus_was_right (#1,068,398)

Well you need food to live, clothes to live, medicine to live, electricity and gas to live. How many things is the government supposed to provide?

Housing gets a bad wrap, but the truth is every industry I mentioned would stop functioning if it weren’t for investors.

−8

tails99 t1_j1pcl5f wrote

Replying to imnotsoho (#1,068,154)

The price controls are made by existing homeowners through restrictive zoning. There is no reason why housing should go up in price. Everything is supposed to go down in price, EXCEPT income. Anything going up in price in a free market is an economic aberration. An even simpler solution to cut housing costs is to legalize living in cars, but homeowners and landlords don't like that either, now do they? More of your "price controls"...

0

dontich t1_j1pfasz wrote

Replying to tails99 (#1,069,258)

I mean there is only a certain amount of in demand land in locations people want to live— even if you allow unlimited density the most popular land would still increase in value…. But yes the actual housing built on said land should depreciate.

1

ehmiu t1_j1ph0gv wrote

Replying to chez-linda (#1,064,268)

Almost every one of the states at the bottoms of ranking lists has one ironic similarity. And when people who represent that similarity ever bring up "secession" or "civil war," I think about how they are justifying why they are at the bottoms of so many of these lists.

2

xBris18 t1_j1piqoh wrote

What an ugly graph. I always thought this sub was about beautiful data and not just about "I copied some data into Excel and used the ugly standard formatting".

2

toosemakesthings t1_j1pkvhu wrote

Is everyone reading this with their head tilted left at a 90-degree angle? :)

1

BastardChicken1 t1_j1ppm67 wrote

State by State in the USA*.

/r/USDefaultism as per fucking usual.

−6

Sassy_chipmunk_10 t1_j1pr9nr wrote

Replying to xBris18 (#1,069,946)

This sub is 90+% look at this controversial or interesting data. Actual design has little to do with most posts. It's usually the most basic shit that gains traction and hits the front page at this point.

2

CarpetbaggerForPeace t1_j1pvsed wrote

One thing to consider is that the mortgage interest rate was 9% in 1975. So $100k in 2022 dollars then is equivalent to $150k now at 5% for a 30 year loan. Or $190k at 3%.

6

kaizerdouken t1_j1q12tb wrote

Replying to fred_fotch (#1,068,705)

Would be interesting to see change in property taxes between 1975 and today. Blue places tend to pay higher property taxes due to them wanting to give more to others in their communities while red places would rather pay nothing and ask to be left alone in peace, therefore generally pay less in property taxes. Property taxes affect prices as new owners need to adjust prices to compensate higher property taxes.

0

FarRelation3062 t1_j1q1k1g wrote

Real estate needs to be put in the basket for 2% inflation targeting. At that rate of growth, a typical US state wouldn’t even be up 100%, yet the lowest growth is around 300% in Mississippi. No wonder people are homeless and destitute.

0

ShinjukuAce t1_j1qc3wi wrote

Good graph, but metro by metro would be a better indicator. Statewide housing prices don’t tell you a lot - New York state for example varies hugely by neighborhoods within New York City versus different suburbs versus rural areas versus other cities like Buffalo.

0

fred_fotch OP t1_j1qdyuu wrote

Replying to CheerfulParadox (#1,067,948)

I was surprised too. They also publish data for the 50 biggest metropolitan areas (starting in 1991) and Austin has the biggest price increase since then. Houston and Dallas are near the middle though.

1

jsm1095 t1_j1qkvab wrote

Do this vs cumulative inflation and avocado toast. I wanna show my parents there is a reason I can’t buy a house and it’s not because of my avocado toast.

1

Think-Mountain1754 t1_j1qm4k3 wrote

In trying to eyeball Arizona growth rate, I realize the scale is terrible.

0

xBris18 t1_j1qr4dl wrote

Replying to fred_fotch (#1,073,904)

Sure, no worries. What makes a "good design" is highly subjective of course, but I think there are a couple of things that are super easy to do in less than a minute that would greatly improve the quality of this graph: First of all, edit the axes: Give both of them a solid black line and change the scale to start at zero. I would also add some tick marks. For this particular graph, I'd change the y-axis to start at zero and end at 2500 %. I'd set the main interval to 500 % and set the minor interval to half that (and make sure to enable both tick marks). I'd also change the width of the bars by setting the gap width to 50 % (standard is - for some reason - 219 %). I would also add tick marks to the x-axis. Maybe increase text size by at least 1 point and definitely change the text colour to solid black. If you feel fancy, change the font. Maybe add labels to the axes as well. A lot of these things are personal preference, but a good litmus test is to look at your graph at half or even quarter the size and see if you can still make out its meaning. If you can't, it's probably a bad graph.

So while I didn't find the exact data set you used, I found a similar one that I put together in literally two minutes: https://i.imgur.com/xIZbXCy.png - I do however like that you use the full names of the states, instead of the abbreviations I used - I just couldn't be bothered to look them up ;)

Also, maybe a map would have been the best format for this data. Also also, I honestly don't really understand the numbers in this. Is 2500 % a lot or not? I think the data should be in some form of context - compare it to inflation or purchasing power in general - something that puts it into perspective. 2500 % looks impressive, but maybe it isn't really. Humans aren't super great at estimating numbers over these kinds of time scales.

2

Mediatech5 t1_j1qrvs2 wrote

CA only has weather as a plus, for the most part. It is becoming more and more like Blade Runner with only the wealthy being able to afford housing. Those that leave and take their proceeds tomorrow affordable states are the winners. L.A. fuggetaboutit....

1

godspareme t1_j1qvtea wrote

Replying to beerbaconblowjob (#1,075,812)

Or, hear me out. Give everyone $1000 (which should scale with inflation & COL) and say "this should cover part of your rent, food, clothes, etc."

No one is asking the government to start their own free clothing production company.

As for a waiting list, not really. There are other countries where housing units are required to be non-profit and rented at cost. They also have a ~30% market share of private housing units that are for-profit. The non-profit drives the cost of for-profit housing units to be competitive and barely above cost. There are little to no waiting lists. And no the places aren't shitty.

That last argument is just fear.

1

beerbaconblowjob t1_j1qxnho wrote

Replying to YangYin-li (#1,075,983)

I’d call it a presumption, here’s a government that told us N95 masks weren’t effective at preventing infection, so they could save them from the healthcare workers. A huge lie.

This government that sent out two measly covid tests 3 months after the first Omicron surge. They had an entire year and scientists to tell them to ramp up production because the virus would mutate.

Literally everything they’ve done has been pathetic, so yeah I’m not optimistic about them controlling every aspect of the economy.

Almost everyone wants the poor to be better off, but communism has never worked, and when you point that out to people their response is, yeah but it’d work in utopia.

Sure, but in the real word that much power leads to tyranny, and no organization (government) can do everything right. Corporations need to stay in their area of expertise.

Not sure why people want a massive bureaucracy in the middle of every aspect of their lives.

0

tails99 t1_j1r3728 wrote

Replying to kaizerdouken (#1,072,004)

I have a degree in economics. Nearly all economists agree that price controls are bad. Rent control is one of those bad things. Exclusionary zoning is the same terrible rent control, except for rich people. I still don't know why it is legal. How can more housing be bad?

1

tails99 t1_j1r3jja wrote

Replying to dontich (#1,069,521)

Yes, exactly. People don't live on limited LAND, people live in HOUSING. Land is limited vertically, like a rare physical Picasso painting, but housing is unlimited vertically, just like looking at a digital Picasso is unlimited.

1

scarabic t1_j1r89me wrote

Yay migrate out to those red states and flip em people. God knows that cheap housing prices are just about the only reason to move there.

1

thelastpizzaslice t1_j1r9bz1 wrote

Doesn't account for changes in housing type over time or inflation, so this shows mostly those two things, rather than anything about the housing market...

2

no_buses t1_j1ra6lz wrote

California’s population this year is lower than it was in 2016. So why the hell has the median house price nearly doubled in that time???

1

coldoldduck t1_j1rcx96 wrote

What’s happened to western Washington / tri county area around Seattle is completely disgusting. Everything historical or with any character or uniqueness demolished for land value, trees cleared and bulldozed, wildlife displaced while Karen calls 911 about a bear in her driveway (no shit, your new house is in his old house), ugly expensive McMansions and apodments and fake and bake subdivisions being snapped up for cash by corporations to sit there empty, widescale gentrification, the area natives being priced out, homelessness and tent cities everywhere, vomit and pee and shit on the sidewalks, drug use, crime and theft at a high, rushed urban density around new rail lines, idiot transplant drivers in their Teslas and dang freaking Polestars that lean on their horns constantly and cant drive in the weather….

Hi. I got a bit carried away. I may be slightly bitter at the “growth”. Get off my lawn.

1

theftnssgrmpcrtst t1_j1relqv wrote

DC is skewed because it's basically a city-state (sans statehood rights). It would be more appropriate to compare DC to the other major metropolises like SF, NYC, etc.

1

FreshInvestment_ t1_j1rg2k7 wrote

This is a bad graph. Why's it go to -200%? Where is 0? There should be a line for 0 or a different color for negative growth if there is any.

1

bee-dubya t1_j1rl1vo wrote

I’d like to see this for Canada. In my area of BC, it is probably at 4,000% or higher in places

1

OrderOfMagnitude t1_j1rojxc wrote

Replying to beerbaconblowjob (#1,068,873)

Scalping houses is only an investment in the sense that you spend now and profit later. It's not actually doing anything productive.

Investing in businesses, although riskier, has the benefit of growing the economy and helping everyone.

In Japan, where quantitative easing was invented, there were strict investment rules to make sure that investors were investing in real investments and not just the real estate speculation that fucked up their economy. Such rules haven't existed here which is why most free covid money got "invested" in houses, causing rampant speculation.

"I'm just investing" haha go invest in a real business or call yourself what you are: a scalper and a parasite.

1

Roy4Pris t1_j1ruaq2 wrote

Replying to Zigxy (#1,079,755)

Children out of wedlock, children out of wedlock reproducing with other children out of wedlock, children born out of wedlock procreating with first cousins - the list goes on

2

tails99 t1_j1smsrf wrote

Replying to Ambitious-Event-5911 (#1,081,921)

There is market for everything because otherwise no one would know how much to make or at what price to sell. Increasing house prices mean that more needs to be built to then lower prices. If more housing is illegal, then enough housing won't be built, existing houses will go up in prices, and those who can't afford them will live in cars or on the street.

0

kaizerdouken t1_j1t9qxm wrote

Replying to tails99 (#1,077,285)

Okay. Maybe I don’t understand what you’re saying. Excuse my ignorance. Let’s say I buy a multi family building. I raise its value and intend to sell it after 2 years. Are you saying this property should not raise its price? Rendering me a loss or no gain by the time I want to sell and make a good gain on it?

1

tails99 t1_j1tce1n wrote

Replying to kaizerdouken (#1,087,380)

I'm not sure how your comment is relevant. In your example, there has been no creation of any more units of housing. I'm referring to it being ILLEGAL to build MORE housing that is DENSE.

​

"I raise its value" :: How do you raise its value?

1

iidesune t1_j1wt8rb wrote

Replying to scarabic (#1,078,035)

Homebuyers are pouring money into the real estate market as well. A house is only as valuable as what the next buyer is willing to spend on it. Hence the delicate balance policymakers must manage when it comes to housing affordability. Homeowners want to see returns on their "investments," but can only do so if a prospective homebuyer pays that return. It's a rat race.

At least with renting you can always vote with your feet or seek better employment in a new zip code or state. Paying rent isn't throwing away money at all. You're paying for the freedom and convenience to move around and find a situation that works best for your current situation.

1

scarabic t1_j1wyw9b wrote

Replying to iidesune (#1,103,270)

The difference is you can buy houses on credit, leverage. In a hot market, borrowing is cheap and speculation drives speculation. Rent, meanwhile, is always paid in cash. Rent is the transfusion of actual blood into what is otherwise a zombie of speculation and credit. It props up the rat race. And renters are getting squeezed hard as the balloon grows.

Sure renting has advantages. Easier to move. Predictable costs. But now we’re on a different subject. We started on rent being some kind of way out of the housing market shit show, and unfortunately it totally isn’t.

Sure, you’re paying rent for something but your rent is often paying the entire mortgage of someone else who is just sitting back gaining equity. It’s hard to say you’re throwing money away but impossible to say you’re winning or not part of the game.

1

scarabic t1_j1xgalo wrote

Replying to iidesune (#1,104,411)

Yeah maybe that metaphor is pretty obtuse.

What I mean is that speculation bubbles don’t always have much basis in real value. Housing in particular is highly leveraged. People buy a house without having all the money for it. Banks lend them the money but they’re not entirely liquid either. The mortgage gets sold and resold, bundled into investment vehicles and derivatives. Families count on their house to be some kind of “investment” and rely on the bubble to fund their retirement. It’s a big network of over-leveraged actors. It stumbles onward largely on its own momentum, but it can be totally hollow, a bubble, a “zombie.”

Renters on the other hand pay cash in hand everywhere they go. Nothing they do is permitted to be a loan or leverage. Whenever renters appear in the diagram, actual cash is flowing in. “Blood infusion.”

Maybe I meant vampire, not zombie.

To offer an example: I bought my first home in 2006, right before the big crash. I got a loan with very little down during the subprime lending spree. Then the crash happened and I wound up upside down on the mortgage. Shortly after I also needed that freedom to “vote with my feet” and move that you speak of. Know what I did? I rented the place out. I paid the mortgage, taxes, and repairs with the rent cash while the market recovered. Even pocketed some monthly profit. And once the market roared back, I sold the place at a big profit.

I was the person over-leveraged, actually at negative value, the zombie, but by feeding on renters, I was eventually made whole.

So when you say you rent because you l’re disgusted by the whole speculation market, I don’t see how that’s a solution. The buyers/sellers are still feeding on you as a renter. You’re maybe the only party in the entire picture who is always there with ready cash in hand, while everyone else is engaged in a gang-bang of credit leverage.

2

iidesune t1_j1xh0vz wrote

Replying to scarabic (#1,106,451)

This is a fine argument for the merit of being a renter.

Just feel fortunate that you lucked out and found a buyer for your home. I would challenge you to factor in down payment, closing costs, maintenance, interest, selling costs, taxes, insurance, and other housing related costs (furniture, utilities, etc) before determining that you actually made a big profit by selling your home.

1

scarabic t1_j1xjq9u wrote

Replying to iidesune (#1,106,570)

Um. My dude. No, I didn’t just forget about my down payment (which immediately becomes equity anyway - you knew that, right?).

The rest of this we tracked continuously and at tax time. If you’ve never owned, maybe it seems hopelessly complex and expensive to you. I can’t tell if that’s it or you just tried so hard to puff up that list that it became ridiculous. Furniture!

Anyway keep renting since you find it morally superior to be exploited than exploit. I won’t take that away from you, just the illusion that you’re somehow not involved.

2